ArticleJournal of dental sciences2026
Assessment of osseointegration mechanisms in a novel zirconia implant: From experimental insights to clinical comparison.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: Zirconia has been proposed as a substitutive material for the next generation of implants. This study aimed to evaluate the osseointegration of a newly developed zirconia implant and compare its clinical parameters with titanium implants. Materials and methods: Beagle dog animal model were used for evaluation of two groups of zirconia implants, with one group subjected to a newly developed sandblasting surface treatment technique and the other using a commercially available zirconia implant. The implants were randomly placed in bilateral edentulous mandibular sites and evaluated at 4, 9, and 13 weeks. The bone-to-implant contact (BIC) ratio was calculated and the fluorescence labelling for evaluation of osseointegration.Clinical trials compared the peri-implant parameters of the zirconia implants with titanium implants to assess peri-implant tissue condition. Results: Animal study indicated that zirconia implant osseointegration was observed between 4 weeks and 9 weeks, accompanied by osteoid deposition. A statistically significant difference was found between the 4-week and 13-week BIC ratio ( Conclusion: This study provides comprehensive insights into zirconia implants. During early osseointegration, bone cells exhibited affinity for the implant surface, emphasizing the role of surface treatment. Clinical trials suggest that zirconia implants may offer a slight advantage in maintaining peri-implant periodontal conditions compared to titanium implants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.